Washington's progress

The Coalition's support for pro-industry amendments to the Rudd Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme increases the chances of the legislation passing before the Copenhagen conference in December.

In the US, meanwhile, the proposed bill to implement an emissions trading scheme is stalled in legislative limbo, and the prospect of a new American commitment to limit greenhouse gas emissions before the UN climate talks is rapidly approaching zero.

Nothing better demonstrates the stark contrast between the climate change debates in Australia and the US than these five key differences:

First, the media coverage of the climate debate is dramatically different in both nations.

Measured by print copy and air time, the Canberra press gallery has dedicated more resources into reporting and commentating about the emissions trading scheme than the Washington Press Corps has.

By way of comparison, consider this: The Australian, the Australian Financial Review, The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald have altogether published 1030 news articles, editorials and opinion pieces on the ETS this year.

The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times have altogether published only 266 news articles, editorials and opinion pieces.

That is a proportion of almost four to one.

It's the same story with respect to radio and television. Hardly a day goes by without the ABC or Sky News airing a news or current affairs segment on the ETS. The major networks in the US - NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox - hardly touch the subject.

Second, US Senators increasingly demand that support for a climate bill be conditional on what amounts to green protectionism.

In recent months, House and Senate Democrats and Republicans from states such as Ohio, Michigan and West Virginia have called on the President to consider imposing a carbon tariff on products from nations that do not accept binding cuts to their carbon emissions.

According to Energy Secretary Steven Chu: "If other countries don't impose a cost on carbon, then we will be at a disadvantage [and] we would look at considering perhaps duties that would offset that cost." A carbon tariff, he suggests, will "level the playing field."

In Australia, although many parliamentarians fret that the cost of doing business under an ETS will drive jobs to developing nations, no politician has proposed anything like a carbon tariff, which could be in breach of WTO rules and trigger a trade war.

Third, US legislators are calling for the use of nuclear energy to meet emissions targets.

Writing in The New York Times recently, for example, Democrat Senator John Kerry and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham argued: "Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emissions targets".

In Australia, notwithstanding National Senator Barnaby Joyce's call for a referendum on the issue, the nuclear option is a no-go area for most politicians.

Fourth, the US critics of the climate bill come in different shapes and sizes.

It's not just conservative Republicans, but centrist and even liberal Democrats who are concerned about the prospect of higher electricity prices or lost manufacturing and coal jobs, or who insist that US carbon reductions should be conditional on big cuts from the developing big polluting nations.

Many Democrats are uneasy about the ETS because they represent Midwest, Southern and Plains states that rely on coal-fired power and heavy manufacturing. Why, they argue, rush through a huge new tax on carbon energy - that is, their constituents - that will largely flow to the wealthier coasts? (It is no coincidence that the co-authors of the ETS in both the House and Senate - Henry Waxman, Ed Markey, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry - are either from California or Massachusetts.)

Then there is John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate, who co-sponsored the climate bill that failed to pass the Senate last year. This "cap-and-tax bill", as he calls it, is a "farce" because it provides "a lot of special deals for a lot of special interests".

Whereas Malcolm Turnbull demands more protection and assistance for industry in the Australian bill, McCain demands less pork in the US version.

In Australia, although the Greens and Independents oppose the CPRS, the media has typecast most of the critics as "militants" or "rebels" on the Right, most notably National Party MPs and Senators led by Joyce as well as a few conservative Liberals such as Wilson Tuckey and Mathias Cormann. No one on the Labor side - publicly at least - has raised any doubts about the legislation.

Finally, the US climate-and-energy bill, commonly referred to as Waxman-Markey (named after two leading congressional Democrat co-sponsors Henry Waxman and Ed Markey) offers far more protection and incentives to agriculture and industry, especially in the power-generating and trade-exposed industries, such as mining and manufacturing, than Labor's CPRS.

Indeed, the bill (narrowly) passed the US House of Representatives in June, precisely because of what The Wall Street Journal identified as 'the extravaganza of log-rolling, vote-buying, out-right corporate bribes, side deals, subsidies and policy loopholes.'

All this, remember, before the Senate version of the bill (co-sponsored by Democrats John Kerry and Barbara Boxer) is further watered down and made even friendlier to the big polluters.

So why does all this matter?

Because, as the Opposition leader recognises, if Canberra's final legislation differs dramatically from Washington's version, our exports could cop a carbon cost not borne by our competitor.

If, moreover, there is no clear leadership from the US - and all the evidence indicates that Washington, pre-occupied with health care legislation, double-digit unemployment and increased troop commitments to Afghanistan, will not pass a climate bill before Copenhagen in December - the UN talks to map out a successor deal to the Kyoto protocol will flounder and Australia will be left out on a limb.